Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: January 28, 2026

Purpose:

Content: 14.1 The Service Manager was in attendance to present a report which updated Committee members on the development to introduce a new TEC Service Delivery Model following approval in March 2025. It was explained that the new model would support the move to a TEC First approach across the city, delivery the best model outcomes for people in receipt of care at the same time as delivering service efficiencies.     14.2 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Adult Health and Social Care Policy Committee:-       a)    Note the developments to introduce the new TEC Services Delivery Model, which will include a 5-year contract I relation to the procurement of a Strategic Partner, and a new Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) b)    Note the continuing work being undertaken to complete the service redesign of Citywide Care Alarms (CWCA) to ensure that the service is affordable, self-funding and delivers the best possible outcomes for customers.     14.3 Reasons for Decision     14.3.1 TEC enables a range of people to be able to continue to live independently, safe, and well in their own home improving quality of life and supports the delivery of the Adult Health & Social Care Strategy Living the Life you want to Live. TEC services deliver benefits, including preventing, delaying, and reducing the need for more intrusive and costly care, demand management, the optimisation of care packages, supporting early discharge from hospital, and preventing avoidable admissions.     14.3.2 The new TEC Service Delivery Model will further our ambition to create a Joint TEC Commissioning Strategy across Health and Social that enables the combination of proactive, reactive, and in-person care with the aim of delivering whole system financial and non-financial benefits supported by joint investment.     14.3.3 The re-brand of the Citywide Care Alarms is in preparation for the new TEC Service Delivery Model as well as supporting the wider service redesign.     14.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected     14.4.1 Alternative Option 1: The financial impact associated with the current CWCA service overspend dictated the need for change, with the current service operating at the periphery of adult social care being unable to realise the financial and non-financial benefits. The opportunities to deliver TEC to people in receipt of adult social care would also be missed. We have subsequently gained approval at the December 25 Committee for the Means testing of TEC alongside care and support to ensure services are accessible to all.     14.4.2 Alternative Option 2: A regional service delivery model would make sense and potentially delivery economies of scale, with a single Strategic Development Partner and Alarm Receiving Centre, with assessment, installation, maintenance, and response services delivered locally by the 4 individual Local Authorities. There is a degree of traction for the concept, however all 4 Local Authorities are at different stages of development, constrained by varying contract terms. Given the risks associated with a delay to the implementation of Sheffield’s proposed TEC Service Delivery Model and associated benefits we have discounted this option but will support further regional developments over the coming years. This is inequitable, will require significant administrative support to manage and will cause confusion and implementation challenges.